A Forum for Orthodox Jewish thought on Halacha, Hashkafa, and the social issues of our time.

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Defining Modern Orthodoxy

R' Aharon Lichtenstein - a Centrist Icon

Defining Orthodoxy is fraught with peril. It is virtually
impossible to get a consensus on what its parameters are. Of course there are some segments that define
themselves as the only true representatives of Judaism and de-legitimize all
other segments. Including other Orthodox
ones. They may be one manifestation of it. But they are certainly by far not
the only manifestation of it.

For purposes of this post, I will define the general
category of Orthodox Judaism as follows. It is the belief in the fundamental tenets
of Judaism and acceptance as mandatory adherence to Halacha.

I have always divided Orthodoxy into these categories:
Charedim, Chasidim, Centrist (RWMO), Left Wing (LWMO) and MO-Lite (...observant more by rote or peer
pressure than by conviction). There is also a category called Orthopraxy that
consist of Jews who are not believers but practice Judaism for a variety of reasons
unrelated to belief. (Such as honoring one’s parents or just being desirous of belonging - and being an integrated member of an Orthodox community.)

The problem with dividing Orthodoxy into categrories is
that there is often a lot of overlap. In some cases it’s hard to peg to which
category one might belong. I don’t think one can draw any hard lines. But in a
general way, I think these categories are fairly distinct.

There are others that breakup Orthodoxy somewhat differently.
In a Forward article, here is how Jerome Chanes has done it:

I actually agree with this breakdown up to a point. It does
not really contradict my own classifications. I concede that Chabad and Satmar are additional independent categories. (Although I do not agree that they aren’t really Chasdim at all. They most
certainly are).

Where I part company with him is in how he defines Centrist Orthodoxy out
of Modern Orthodoxy... and the reason it has developed the way it has. As a Centrist, I consider myself Modern Orthodox. I think it is important to
make that clear. What he now defines Modern Orthodoxy is the way I define Left
Wing Modern Orthodoxy. Here is how he says Centrism evolved:

(T)he Modern Orthodox began looking over their right
shoulder at the more sectarian world of Agudath Israel and the Brooklyn
Yeshivas. “Hmm — they are wonderfully observant, they sit and ‘learn,’ and they
do send their kids to college!” Second, in terms of interaction with the
external world — what we call public affairs — the Modern Orthodox began moving
in a rightward direction.

The result? The overwhelming majority of those we used to
call “Modern Orthodox” are further to the right both religiously and in terms
of public affairs, increasingly conservative on Israel and religious issues.
The Modern Orthodox world of the 1960s, moderate-to-liberal on most public
policy issues — church-state, civil rights, Israel, even reproductive choice —
has moved steadily rightward. These are the “Centrist Orthodox.”

Leaving out the political side of it, that is not exactly what happened. I can understand why
someone on the left that now calls themselves MO thinks that. But this is not exactly what a Centrist is. First
(aside form the obvious adherence to the fundamentals of faith and adherence to
Halacha) a Centrist has by no means abandoned modernity. We believe that
there is much to be gained in the modern world both educationally and
culturally.

Modern Orthodoxy actually encompasses two separate
Hashkafos. Torah U’Madda (TuM) and Torah Im Derech Eretz (TIDE - as expressed
by its founder Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch). Although adherents of TIDE sometimes
vehemently deny that they are MO or that they have anything to do with TuM - by
definition, TIDE embraces modernity and has much in common with TuM.

Both believe that secular knowledge is valuable. Both
believe that there is much in secular culture to admire. There are
differences in the reasons of both. But in practice there is little difference. (TIDE
should not be confused with some of the customs that are common among German
Jews who are the people most commonly associated with TIDE. It is not the
customs of German Jewry that defines TIDE. It is their Hashkafa that defines it.)

I do agree with Mr. Chanes that the Modern Orthodoxy of our day is not the same Modern Orthodoxy of our parents and
grandparents day. But I don’t accept that the new ‘Modern
Orthodoxy’ is only reflected by the left. In my view the category still very much includes
Centrists. We may be perceived as being
more right wing but we are certainly not pushing any rightward envelopes. The
left on the other hand is pushing the envelope of Orthodoxy leftward beyond acceptable limits.
The things he cites as innovations are the very things that border on crossing
the lines of even the Modern Orthodoxy of old. Here is how he puts it:

The Modern Orthodoxy of today, distinguished from the
Centrist, is the only place in the world of traditional observance where
interesting, creative, innovative things are happening. It’s the arena of
Drisha and Yeshivat Maharat, offering traditional study of Jewish texts for
women; of Rabbi Irving “Yitz” Greenberg; of the “partnership” minyanim, pushing
the envelope in traditional structures of prayer; of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah’s
“Open Orthodoxy.”

This may be modern. But it barely resembles Orthodoxy in my
view. Mr. Chanes attributes the Centrist move
to the right to looking over our shoulders at organizations like Agudah. This
is simply not a fact. What we have done is become more educated about Judaism
and accepted the fact that in the past, there was a lot of ignorance about
actual Halacha.

Just to take one example. Modern Orthodox social events used to
have mixed dancing. That completely ignores Halacha. It is forbidden by Halacha
for a man and a woman (that are not married to each other) to touch one
another. Even according to those who allow it in non sexual platonic ways –
dancing together is not one of those ways

To take another example, most married Modern Orthodox women
of the past did not cover their hair. Halacha requires them to do so. In our
day almost all married Orthodox Jewish women cover their hair – even those in
LWMO.

In most cases we are far more educated than our MO parents and grandparents
were. That is what the day school system has accomplished. We are more knowledgeable about Halacha and strive to follow it more carefully. To the causal
observer who sees us now and remembers the past, it just seems like we are
looking to our right. But that isn’t what we do.

What distinguishes a Centrist from a LWMO is not our
attitude towards modernity. We both have positive views of it. It is how we
view innovations in our religious practices. Whereas Mr. Chanes sees breaking with tradition as a positive response
to the spirit of the times - we view it as a negative break from normative Judaism. We
value tradition and are resistant to changing it unless there are some very
strong – even existential reasons to do so. By responding to the spirit of the
times with innovations like Partnership Minyans LWMO begins to resemble Heterodoxy
more than the do Orthodoxy. That they do not cross any Halachic lines may still
make them Modern Orthodox*. But certainly not exclusively so... or even in the mainstream sense of the word.

They no more have that kind of exclusionary claim, than do certain Charedim to the claim that their version of Judaism is the only authentic form of it.
In my view, though both may be Orthodox, they are both extreme versions of it.

*Leaving out their recent embrace of one of their ordained
rabbis who has rejected some of the fundamental tenets of our faith - which does
cross a line into Heterodoxy.

Follow by Email

Followers

Recent Comments

About Me

My outlook on Judaism is based mostly on the teachings of my primary Rebbe, Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik from whom I received my rabbinic ordination. It is also based on a search for spiritual truth. Among the various sources that put me on the right path, two great philosophic works stand out: “Halakhic Man” and “Lonely Man of Faith” authored by the pre-eminent Jewish philosopher and theologian, Rabbi, Dr. Joseph B. Soloveitchik. Of great significance is Rabbi, Dr. Norman Lamm's conceptualization and models of Torah U’Mada and Dr. Eliezer Berkovits who introduced me to the world of philosophic thought. Among my early influences were two pioneers of American Elementary Torah Chinuch, Rabbis Shmuel Kaufman and Yaakov Levi. The Yeshivos I attended were Yeshivas Telshe for early high school and more significantly, the Hebrew Theological College where for a period of ten years, my Rebbeim included such great Rabbinic figures as Rabbis Mordechai Rogov, Shmaryahu Meltzer, Yaakov Perlow, Herzl Kaplan, and Selig Starr. I also attended Roosevelt University where I received my Bachelors Degree - majoring in Psychology.